Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Are you serious? Do you even hear yourself?

What the fuck?

TM

That was dry gallows humor.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That was dry gallows humor.

TM

[Adder]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

which will mean waaaay more lunatic Freedom Caucus types at every possible level of government.

While I mostly totally agree with your freak out, will it? There will be at least some tension between ensuring the most GOP seats and the safest GOP seats. So maybe there will be some purplish districts that won't elect a lunatic??

If a state has a constitutional issue with any of it, Republicans will amend it out of existence or their appointed judges will strike the provision.

Yeah, amending a state constitution isn't a particularly difficult thing to do.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Adder

While I mostly totally agree with your freak out, will it? There will be at least some tension between ensuring the most GOP seats and the safest GOP seats. So maybe there will be some purplish districts that won't elect a lunatic??

Maybe. But I bet there will be more packing in those situations than spreading. And if there is spreading, it will render Democrat votes completely meaningless, no?

TM

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Jesus Christ. We are talking about different things.

I am not interested in PA. First, because the PA decision has already been made.

Second, here's what is going to happen. Every very red state is going to gerrymander the fuck out of every possible election. And they'll do it with the most sophisticated software, ensuring maximum Republican results, which will mean waaaay more lunatic Freedom Caucus types at every possible level of government.

Then, states like Texas (that are trending blue-ward) will do the same. With their newly gerrymandered state senates, they will change the laws. They will appoint more lunatic judges who will uphold those laws. If a state has a constitutional issue with any of it, Republicans will amend it out of existence or their appointed judges will strike the provision.

But if you think any state where Republicans can now gerrymander themselves into a permanent position of power is going to self-regulate itself to fairness after this decision, you are absolutely crazy.

You combine this decision with the destruction of the Voting Rights Act and Republican goals have been met beyond their wildest dreams. The fact that the Electoral College and the existence of the Senate already gives them outsized political power wasn't enough. Your head is going to fucking spin with the levels of political gerrymandering we're about to go through.

This decision is a fucking joke.

(Also, I don't care what your friends think.)

TM

That PA has already been decided is immaterial. State supreme courts control decisions regarding interpretation of state constitutions. This means that if TX has a constitution that requires "fair and equal voting" like PA's, and it gerrymanders in some insane way, any citizen of TX can file a suit, which will wind up before the state supreme court on appeal, raising the same issue raised in PA. And this SCOTUS ruling, which is limited to federal intervention in gerrymandering, will not apply.

In PA, the GOP controls House and Senate, and it has for some time. Even with that power, it still could not stop the gerrymandering case from reaching the state supreme court. And no matter what anyone thinks (my friend who works for the GOP included), this new SCOTUS ruling will not imperil the PA supreme court's ruling.

Is this a good situation? No. Am I arguing that you're too worried about what SCOTUS did? No. The sole thing I was offering was a carve-around. Take what I said to be, "Yeah, I hear you. But gerrymandering was dealt with effectively in PA, and that case may provide a template for how it can be dealt with elsewhere."

I totally agree with you that the GOP will go on a lunatic gerrymandering spree as a result of this SCOTUS ruling. But I think this is just going to invite challenges like the one that occurred in PA. And the PA decision is pretty well written. It's going to be hard for even partisan courts in red states to get around that reasoning if they happen to have a constitution similar to PA's, which I'm betting they do.

Is this good for the country? No. Is it certain imminent doom? No. As I read this, SCOTUS punted to the states. PA gave them a roadmap. And you seem to think the states themselves will have to take some "self-regulatory" action. That's just wrong. I don't even know where you come up with that concept. Aggrieved voters simply have to file a lawsuit in response to extreme GOP gerrymandering that is sure to occur in the coming months.

All this ruling has really done is take away federal court as a forum for challenging gerrymandering. That's not good at all. And it will bite the GOP in the ass down the road. But it's not a doomsday event. It just means you have to battle in the state courts.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

That, of course, favors the Repubes since they have solid control over states with more seats than do Dems. I understand you like that.

Gerrymandering has a lot of adverse consequences - it makes seats noncompetitive, so incumbents more easily win; it shifts the real focus to primaries, so elections get controlled by a smaller more radical group; it concentrates money in fewer competitive districts. There just isn't a silver lining to gerrymandering.

I didn't know that, and that wasn't my point. I was, badly it appears, joking that this ruling won't imperil democracy, just factionalize the republic into something ungovernable.

I just listened to a recent interview with Jared Diamond where he described how democracies disintegrate. He cited gerrymandering as the most significant of all of the factors. His view is that while everybody is looking at Trump, McConnell is doing to the real damage.

It's a simple hack. Our Republic isn't constructed to work with any party using "total war" tactics. It relies on legislators acting on the system's behalf above their own party interests where the two come into conflict.

The GOP has found a rationale to avoid that duty by saying that the "character of America" is challenged by changes sought by the majority, and it has a duty to stop that, by any means necessary. Yes, that's what they say. You'll never hear it aloud, but I know you've heard it in private. It's like the ramblings of a very bitter Edmund Burke.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Adder

Yeah, amending a state constitution isn't a particularly difficult thing to do.

Maybe the answer is that Democrats need to do the politics instead of waiting for the Supreme Court to save them.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

That PA has already been decided is immaterial. State supreme courts control decisions regarding interpretation of state constitutions. This means that if TX has a constitution that requires "fair and equal voting" like PA's, and it gerrymanders in some insane way, any citizen of TX can file a suit, which will wind up before the state supreme court on appeal, raising the same issue raised in PA. And this SCOTUS ruling, which is limited to federal intervention in gerrymandering, will not apply.

In PA, the GOP controls House and Senate, and it has for some time. Even with that power, it still could not stop the gerrymandering case from reaching the state supreme court. And no matter what anyone thinks (my friend who works for the GOP included), this new SCOTUS ruling will not imperil the PA supreme court's ruling.

Absolutely no one, anywhere, is arguing that this Supreme Court decision will affect the PA state court's decision. I am perplexed as to why you keep acting like someone is.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Is this a good situation? No. Am I arguing that you're too worried about what SCOTUS did? No. The sole thing I was offering was a carve-around. Take what I said to be, "Yeah, I hear you. But gerrymandering was dealt with effectively in PA, and that case may provide a template for how it can be dealt with elsewhere."

If this is the case as it relates to most state constitutions, I guess that's something. I would be interested to know how many and which states contain such a provision. And as I said before, Republicans are going to revise their constitutions to eliminate this or pack their courts with other lunatic Republicans to get the result they want.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Is this good for the country? No. Is it certain imminent doom? No. As I read this, SCOTUS punted to the states. PA gave them a roadmap.

You keep saying this about everything that is happening in this country.

Russian Interference? "Nothing burger."
Voting Rights Act destruction? "Par for the course."
Eliminating federal challenges to purely political gerrymandering? "Not imminent doom."

Etc., ad nauseum. So you'll excuse me if I ignore your take on what will and will not serve as "imminent" and "doom."

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

And you seem to think the states themselves will have to take some "self-regulatory" action. That's just wrong. I don't even know where you come up with that concept. Aggrieved voters simply have to file a lawsuit in response to extreme GOP gerrymandering that is sure to occur in the coming months.

Right. And you're betting that state courts in this country are going to come to the same conclusion as PA? You can't possibly be this naïve.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

All this ruling has really done is take away federal court as a forum for challenging gerrymandering. That's not good at all. And it will bite the GOP in the ass down the road.

No it won't. Stop talking out of your ass.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But it's not a doomsday event.

Yes it is. If you think North Carolina (for one example) is going to come to the right decision, you're sick in the fucking head.

TM

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Maybe the answer is that Democrats need to do the politics instead of waiting for the Supreme Court to save them.

With a fucking vengeance.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

With a fucking vengeance.

Serious question

https://www.google.com/search?q=mich...3rEcm-M:&vet=1 this is a map of the congressional districts around Detroit. Texas looks worse. I would say it would have been nice for the Supremes to stand up (not agreeing or disagreeing with the legal logic, just saying I had hoped for a different result), but honestly do you think it can get much worse?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

With a fucking vengeance.

It's past time. Impeach everyone. Gerrymander everything. Obstruct all. Lie, cheat, steal. Refuse all appointments whenever possible. This is how this country operates now. Fuck the rules. Like Sebby says, all that matters is power. So once you have it, crust the other side and destroy everything to keep it.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Right. And you're betting that state courts in this country are going to come to the same conclusion as PA? You can't possibly be this naïve.


TM

this- this is where today's ruling will have a huge impact- state judges gonna say their constitution is different enough from the Federal? Nope. It will have to be pretty specific to get that. This is not the way out.

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

So once you have it, crust the other side and destroy everything to keep it.

Your crusty dick is a major part of the problem.

SlaveNo(Oh no he did't)More

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by SlaveNoMore

Your crusty dick is a major part of the problem.

SlaveNo(Oh no he did't)More

Goddamnit I laughed at this.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Goddamnit I laughed at this.

I like slave, and my biggest lt regret is I have never done drinks with him, but I don't get this joke. I'd rather not focus on T's dick at all, but do not get why it might be crusty? funny how, like it amuses you?